See here for wealth outcomes:
https://www.businessinsider.com/colleges-that-have-created-the-most-millionaires-and-billionaires-2017-5
^ re #220, IMO that’s a GIGO article. They include graduate schools in the equation, so the Clintons, who attended Wellesley and Georgetown, are listed as graduates of Yale, where they attended law school. Warren Buffet, (U Nebraska) is listed as a Columbia grad. NYU claims Angelina Jolie, even though she dropped out after a short time.
@sue22 I wouldn’t say its GIGO, as they decided to include graduate schools which is probably relevant. More interesting is they didn’t normalize for the number of graduates each school had; that would be really telling as to which schools produce the most UHNW.
Graduate schools really skew things. For instance, the reason many people get into top business schools is that they’ve already made a lot of money.
Dropouts are excluded from the study.
@barrons SMU isn’t really an attractive school for high achievers, neither rank nor rigor of the school is at their desired level and no free full rides either. It’s more for rich or poor average students. UT, UTD, A&M, Tech and Baylor offer better value than SMU, specially to pre-Med and engineering.
Rice is incredibly difficult to get in as it is but more so for locals as everyone applies there and Rice just can’t fill up a class with Texas valedictorians and salutatorians, unless they are bringing more to the plate than just grades. It’s expensive too and without aid, not easy to afford.
Rice has updated their financial aid system. https://news.rice.edu/2018/09/18/rice-university-announces-new-program-to-dramatically-expand-scholarships-for-middle-class-2/
I don’t think anyone considers SMU an option for average students, ranked at number 59 nationally and with a strong undergrad business school ranked number 21 nationally. It draws students interested in finance particularly.
The question asked in the original post, like almost everything in the U.S. right now, seems to pit the Northeast/California/Chicago folks against the rest of the country. While there are the few exceptions everywhere, it just isn’t common enough to be “a thing” (as the kids say) for high schoolers in Iowa to be crushed that they will be heading to Ames or Iowa City in late August rather than Ithaca or Palo Alto. Same for those headed to Tuscaloosa or Auburn, Boulder or Fort Collins, Ann Arbor or East Lansing.
So many straw men in this discussion…If students at State U want attention from a professor, they know how to knock on a door. If they want to study abroad, get an internship, or graduate in 4 years, they can do that (my kid graduated from a flagship in accounting in 3). I’ve been to a lot of state colleges, & never saw a line around a building of those waiting for dinner. Alumni loyalty and networking? Are you kidding? Ever meet an Aggie, Cornhusker, or Buckeye?
@moooop fair enough point about size of the student body might not be an issue but was just talking with friends kid who is a junior at UCLA and she is still in some classes with 300+ students and mentioned something about attendance is optional (maybe because they don’t have enough seats?). You would think that by the time you were a junior with upper division courses the class size would be more manageable? These kinds of anecdotes concern me at our in state public universities…
Depends on the university & the major, but from what I’ve seen, the ubiquity of the 1000-seat lecture hall nightmare is exaggerated. Yes, some classes in some majors at some schools might have those, but it’s unfair & untrue to assume that’s the norm. There are probably adults & high schoolers on cc who have never set foot on a state college campus, much less attended one. I’m proposing that they sometimes too easily accept the “you’re just a number” at State U propaganda because it reinforces their belief that there is some sort of law of nature that makes the private superior to the public.
SMU’s stats look more than average. https://www.smu.edu/-/media/Site/ir/commondatasets/2018/CDS_2018-19_Part_C_First_Time_Freshman.pdf?la=en
My son just finished his freshman year at one of the biggest flagships in the country, and his largest class had 40 students. The intro class in his major was an Honors class with 24 students, and the rest of his classes were between 25 and 35. He chose this school over several T20 private options specifically because they are very highly ranked in his major, with a huge department and extensive course offerings in his areas of interest. He’s been able to jump right into 300 & 400 level courses in his major, and his profs most definitely know who he is and don’t see him as just a number.
His department is large enough that there are a dozen research groups for subspecialties within the major, where students (undergrad & grad) and faculty meet monthly to discuss research, invite outside speakers, etc. There are lots of opportunities for undergrad research, and a huge and very loyal alumni network. There’s no question that, for his major, the resources and opportunities at this school are far greater than at any of his T20 private options, which were more prestigious overall but much lower ranked in his major, with much smaller departments and more limited course offerings. The $250K difference in price (his scholarships cover full OOS tuition plus part of R&B) is icing on the cake.
When people are discussing public vs. private colleges we often hear about how amazing honors colleges are at flagships and the networking advantages of Ivies, but the vast majority of students do not have these as options. By definition only the top students will be offered spots at either.
I’m interested in the advantages and disadvantages for the slightly above average kid-the one who’s chosing between Eckerd and UMass non-honors or Purdue non-honors and Fordham.
Superstars will do well wherever they go. What about the kid who doesn’t come in with a laser focus on what they want to study and a gazillion credits? The one who’s likely to work hard, get involved on campus, but flounder a bit along the way?
@Correlano, this is not a response to your post, so please don’t take it as criticism of any sort.
@Sue22 That isn’t the average CC student and is usually not the type of student who prompts the fierce debate on here about privates v. state flagships.
Frankly that is the average CC student. It’s just that those voices are often silenced by the “Ivy or bust” crowd.
You don’t exactly get personal attention at the Ivy’s and other highly rated universities in the top 20 either.
My psych 101 class had one thousand students when I was an undergrad at Cornell. Private does not necessarily equal small classes.
“…was just talking with friends kid who is a junior at UCLA and she is still in some classes with 300+ students and mentioned something about attendance is optional (maybe because they don’t have enough seats?)”
The more likely explanation is that some professors put their lectures online and so students who want to can catch up later. (UCLA is different to some other universities which have explicitly online courses that were recorded previously)
@Sue22 It’s funny you mentioned Eckerd, because that’s where I went for undergrad. I was a first gen, dirt poor (EFC $0), high stats kid, and at the time they offered a full ride for National Merit, so that’s where I went. I had a great experience there, although the strength of that experience was heavily dependent on one professor who became my mentor. Had he not been there, my experience would still have been overall positive, but not nearly as life-changing.
The pros were small classes with lots of discussion, lots of intensive writing, no scantron or multiple-choice exams, lots of opportunity for independent study courses, and very little bureaucracy if I needed help (needed an increase in financial aid, needed to add/drop a course past the deadline, etc.).
The cons included such limited course options that independent study was basically a necessity if I wanted to pursue advanced topics. I took the one or two courses that were offered in my major each semester that I hadn’t already taken, and then I filled the rest of my schedule with electives and independent study. I was very lucky in having a philosophy prof take me under his wing and really push me to advanced levels of thinking and writing; there’s no question in my mind that his recommendations, and the independent study courses I did with him, are what got me into top PhD programs like UCLA and Berkeley.
I have no regrets and I think a LAC was definitely the best place for me, given that I was truly 100% on my own with no support of any kind (financial or otherwise) from family. I probably would have been lost at a huge flagship, because I just had no idea how the system worked, what the options were, or what to do if I needed help (academic, financial, logistical, whatever). However, in my case the cost of a private LAC was equal to or less than the cost of an in-state public, so I wasn’t forced to choose between taking on large debt for a private school versus a cheap public option.
D21 does not have the academic stats that S had, and doesn’t have strong interests in terms of major, so in many ways she is exactly the kind of kid who is often choosing between Eckerd-level private schools and in-state publics. But she’s perfectly happy with the in-state options, and isn’t even considering private schools. As much as I enjoyed my time at Eckerd, I (personally) don’t consider it worth an extra $150K or so compared to our public options. (No disrespect to those who choose Eckerd, especially with large merit awards, as I think it’s a great school — just not worth the full COA for our family.)